ImageMaker

You hit the nail on the head.. Everyone is clamoring about the ability to shoot 4k but no one is paying attention to the underlying issue that the GH4 still shoots a poor de-bayered image that(much like pretty much anything else currently available under 12k) lacks detail. Shooting RAW OR 4k is not a feasible solution for MANY projects. I recently shot almost a Terabyte of 1080 footage for over the span of 3 days for a documentary(think about how that would limit or impact what you shoot, how you shoot, how often you would need to backup, etc). I see many positives to what the GH4 can provide(cropping 4k is super useful, pulling stills, etc), but I also see many negatives(including the headaches and limitations of the dslr footprint).
 
I too would rather have seen a dslr format that could shoot a better QUALITY(non-debayered image a'la F3, c300, 1dc) 1080 image with increased bit depth, dynamic range, and the ability to over crank rather then get 4k and an externally powered box that enables sound and hd-sdi.  
 
Aside from it appearing to be an awesome camera with some great features, Right now I can't help but see the 4k feature in particular as being more of a "gimmick" for aspiring filmmakers to waste money on rather then becoming a serious tool for the arsenal. 

It would conform fine to a 25p timeline

Not to hijack the thread, but that is an erroneous statement. A better way of putting it would be, the gh4 does a lot of things better then the c100, however it also DOESN'T do a lot of things better than the c100. For instance, Light an interview properly, setup both cameras and the end result will give the nod to the c100. Better yet, set the gh4 to 4k mode for that interview and transcode the full image to 1080(because that is what you will need to match the detail level of the non de-bayered canon) and after changing the memory card about 10 times and going through the headaches of backing up, transferring, transcoding that kind of data, I would still say the C100 would result in a more pleasing final image. Just so folks know, I'm not talking about data rates, dynamic range or actual resolution when I refer to image detail. Unlike what most other cameras are doing, Canon's cinema line does not de-bayer the raw image stream the same way most dslr, gh3, gh4, 5d, fs700, bmcc, bmpc does.
 
The c100 also gets a nod when examining the efficiency overall (built in xlr, neutral density, battery life, s35 sensor) and let's not forget some pretty spiffy low light performance :)
 
 
For a portable 4k aquisition tool, and cost, huge thumbs up for the GH4! For interviews, documentary work, events, weddings, large volume broll shooting. Big thumbs down. Not that it couldn't work for those demographics, but I see the c100 as an efficient tool that really does make life a lot easier for a lot of filmmakers.  2 different tools meant for different things I guess